Nice to see some many people idiotically reading things that were not said or even implied into my statements, and into those of Sam Harris.

Both he and I addressed all of the points raised thus far.

Can I assume that you have given your own possessions away?
Or is it just the money of others that you wish to confiscate and redistribute?

And while we’re at it:
Domestic pets seem to be a lot better off than the wild beasts and those raised for food.
Perhaps when you get all the humans equalized, you could start on the other animals.
Who knows….....maybe we could get a large greenhouse for the plants that are exposed to the whims of nature.

Again, Sam Harris addressed this in his response.

No need to repeat it here.

Again…........Do you intend to give away your personal possessions in order to accomplish your Utopian ideal?
I can understand why you prefer not to answer the question yourself.
It is easy to redistribute the wealth of others as is now being done by our progressive President.
But you will notice, Obama’s bank account is still quite substantial and his generosity with the money of others has had only harmful effects on the country.

And, Again, Sam Harris answered this, and I agree with his answer.

No, I don’t. As that is not necessary, nor a wise means of accomplishing the goals. He gives the reasons behind it in his response.

What I will do is pay my fair share of taxes, and lobby that the tax rates on the Rich should revert to their pre-1995-97 rates, when the economy was booming, and a mountain of wealth was created. This is all that is needed to accomplish these goals.

But… Seeing as you are wholly ignorant of Sam Harris’ response to these specific points, I expect that you are also wholly ignorant of this point as well.

And, the goal is NOT Utopian, it is Humanitarian.

It is egalitarianism that targets the wealthy.
It is a pie in the sky idealism that is no different than communism.
It can’t possibly work simply because it is antithetical to human nature.
Perhaps you would prefer to live in a nation whose government has the authority to spread the wealth in a manner which the bureaucrats determine.
I prefer a free-enterprise system in which one’s hard word tends to be rewarded with increased income.
And not to be in a society that rewards sloth and indifference.
I just can’t think of anything like that in the history of man.
Top 50% of wage earners pay 96.03% of income taxes.
Fifty percent of the people in the US pay no taxes at all.
If it is fairness you seek, the pendulum should swing the other way.

Nice to see some many people idiotically reading things that were not said or even implied into my statements, and into those of Sam Harris.

Both he and I addressed all of the points raised thus far.

Can I assume that you have given your own possessions away?
Or is it just the money of others that you wish to confiscate and redistribute?

And while we’re at it:
Domestic pets seem to be a lot better off than the wild beasts and those raised for food.
Perhaps when you get all the humans equalized, you could start on the other animals.
Who knows….....maybe we could get a large greenhouse for the plants that are exposed to the whims of nature.

Again, Sam Harris addressed this in his response.

No need to repeat it here.

Again…........Do you intend to give away your personal possessions in order to accomplish your Utopian ideal?
I can understand why you prefer not to answer the question yourself.
It is easy to redistribute the wealth of others as is now being done by our progressive President.
But you will notice, Obama’s bank account is still quite substantial and his generosity with the money of others has had only harmful effects on the country.

And, Again, Sam Harris answered this, and I agree with his answer.

No, I don’t. As that is not necessary, nor a wise means of accomplishing the goals. He gives the reasons behind it in his response.

What I will do is pay my fair share of taxes, and lobby that the tax rates on the Rich should revert to their pre-1995-97 rates, when the economy was booming, and a mountain of wealth was created. This is all that is needed to accomplish these goals.

But… Seeing as you are wholly ignorant of Sam Harris’ response to these specific points, I expect that you are also wholly ignorant of this point as well.

And, the goal is NOT Utopian, it is Humanitarian.

It is egalitarianism that targets the wealthy.
It is a pie in the sky idealism that is no different than communism.
It can’t possibly work simply because it is antithetical to human nature.
Perhaps you would prefer to live in a nation whose government has the authority to spread the wealth in a manner which the bureaucrats determine.
I prefer a free-enterprise system in which one’s hard word tends to be rewarded with increased income.
And not to be in a society that rewards sloth and indifference.
I just can’t think of anything like that in the history of man.
Top 50% of wage earners pay 96.03% of income taxes.
Fifty percent of the people in the US pay no taxes at all.
If it fairness you seek, the pendulum should swing the other way.

As I illustrated with a model, 50% of the people who pay no taxes do so because they consume no infrastructure that would require them to pay taxes.

Nor do they make enough money to pay taxes. They are the exact people who need help so that within a generation they WILL be paying taxes.

THAT is what a progressive tax is all about.

However, you seem to be of the exact type of selfish monster that Sam Harris points out in his response.

You have fun with that system, and when someone eventually puts a gun to your head because they happen to be too poor to do anything else, I will not be surprised nor saddened by the event.

Nice to see some many people idiotically reading things that were not said or even implied into my statements, and into those of Sam Harris.

Both he and I addressed all of the points raised thus far.

Can I assume that you have given your own possessions away?
Or is it just the money of others that you wish to confiscate and redistribute?

And while we’re at it:
Domestic pets seem to be a lot better off than the wild beasts and those raised for food.
Perhaps when you get all the humans equalized, you could start on the other animals.
Who knows….....maybe we could get a large greenhouse for the plants that are exposed to the whims of nature.

Again, Sam Harris addressed this in his response.

No need to repeat it here.

Again…........Do you intend to give away your personal possessions in order to accomplish your Utopian ideal?
I can understand why you prefer not to answer the question yourself.
It is easy to redistribute the wealth of others as is now being done by our progressive President.
But you will notice, Obama’s bank account is still quite substantial and his generosity with the money of others has had only harmful effects on the country.

And, Again, Sam Harris answered this, and I agree with his answer.

No, I don’t. As that is not necessary, nor a wise means of accomplishing the goals. He gives the reasons behind it in his response.

What I will do is pay my fair share of taxes, and lobby that the tax rates on the Rich should revert to their pre-1995-97 rates, when the economy was booming, and a mountain of wealth was created. This is all that is needed to accomplish these goals.

But… Seeing as you are wholly ignorant of Sam Harris’ response to these specific points, I expect that you are also wholly ignorant of this point as well.

And, the goal is NOT Utopian, it is Humanitarian.

It is egalitarianism that targets the wealthy.
It is a pie in the sky idealism that is no different than communism.
It can’t possibly work simply because it is antithetical to human nature.
Perhaps you would prefer to live in a nation whose government has the authority to spread the wealth in a manner which the bureaucrats determine.
I prefer a free-enterprise system in which one’s hard word tends to be rewarded with increased income.
And not to be in a society that rewards sloth and indifference.
I just can’t think of anything like that in the history of man.
Top 50% of wage earners pay 96.03% of income taxes.
Fifty percent of the people in the US pay no taxes at all.
If it fairness you seek, the pendulum should swing the other way.

As I illustrated with a model, 50% of the people who pay no taxes do so because they consume no infrastructure that would require them to pay taxes.

Nor do they make enough money to pay taxes. They are the exact people who need help so that within a generation they WILL be paying taxes.

THAT is what a progressive tax is all about.

However, you seem to be of the exact type of selfish monster that Sam Harris points out in his response.

You have fun with that system, and when someone eventually puts a gun to your head because they happen to be too poor to do anything else, I will not be surprised nor saddened by the event.

Taxes pay for civilization.

Currently, there is not enough revenue to pay for that Civilization.

That is simply because of the government’s spending spree and the ruling party’s desire to spread the wealth.
Throwing money at a problem never helps.
Look at the US educational fiasco.
Doling out other peoples money disempowers the recipients and creates a multi-generational entitlement underclass.
You can’t really help anyone by giving them money.
You call keeping and spending one’s hard earned money “selfish” and indicate that
it is alright for the poor and lazy to take what they want by force.
I seem to remember that type of diatribe in the history books.
If you want more money….....work harder.
If you want to help the poor…....do that.
Just don’t try to get the government to take money away from the people who have earned it and pay their (more than) fair share of taxes.

well i would say that if it were possible,we count up all the wealth in the world and all the people in the world and devide the firs number by the second. this is the only fair wealth of an individual. anything over it is on some others expence